TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

48 participants
6504 discussions

Networking and the UNIX versions or releases for the PDP-11

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine Still working on my ideas regarding E11 and the usual OSes for the PDP-11. Would anyone of you know when networking via Ethernet was added to the capabilities of regular UNIX? It seems to be available in the releases of BSD that I've explored. For those that missed it, I can reiterate my plans concerning the Linux variety of E-11, and those operating systems, but only upon request. --- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net --- "Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi

19 years, 6 months

Re: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 27, Issue 1

by benyuan liu

hi all: currently i am reading the mit 6.828 course, and i am wondering how to creat a rk05 image from the ground up?just like the one mentioned in the course v6root v6src v6doc? thanks in advance~ ------------------------------ lucky buggy

19 years, 6 months

UNIX and relatives and SSH

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine One of my less then familiar with UNIX and its relatives, friend, wants to explore a system running UNIX. Probably BSD for the PDP-11 I should think. Since I view telnet, from the Internet to me anyway, as a security risk can someone check this assertion? The last version of BSD for the PDP-11 that I am aware of, and have seen on the site, 2.11 does not have the capability to run SSH, because it does not have the ability to compile it from source. SSH wasn't added to the operating systems that we use until much later. I freely admit that part of my assertion may not be correct however. (Regarding the ability to build SSH natively.) For example, I am aware that the BSD base, such as FreeBSD, and NetBSD, and OpenBSD, all have SSH included. It certainly is in Linux. What I am planning on doing is configuring the Linux version of E11 to run the chosen BSD pointing its Ethernet connection, to the one my Linux box in question uses. And have a second one also running the same release work as a gateway for the first. You'd run SSH to the gateway, login as a "guest" and via an appropriate password, and then telnet to the product. Of course to risk damage to the baseboard Ethernet connection, I'd probably put a cheap card in the computer, and run that over to my router. Pointing it of course to the E11instance. Warren, just for the sake of double checking my facts, are the instructions regarding the BSD family for the PDP-11 up to date? --- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net --- "Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi

19 years, 6 months

[pups] "/unix is not the running version." ??

by Robert Armstrong

Guys, Thanks for the help with my dzq11 problem - I'm glad to see that there are still people around running PDP-11 Unix. Now that I've actually started using my 11/73, I've run into several things that I just don't know how to fix. Like this one - I built a non-networking kernel (my normal /unix kernel has DEQNA and TCP/IP support) using the NONET example that comes with 2.11BSD. No particular problems there. Since I don't actually want to overwrite my /unix file, I can't use "make install" to install the nonet kernel, and so I just say "cp unix /nonet" and then chmod /nonet to set the protections. This might have been my mistake, but I don't know any other way to do it without trashing my real /unix kernel. To boot the nonet kernel, at the ":" boot prompt I type "nonet". All is well until we get up to init, and then it says autoconfig: /unix is not the running version init: configuration setup error And then I'm stuck in single user mode with no devices configured. Not especially useful. Is my mistake in just "cp"ing the nonet kernel, or is there some limitation on booting files other than /unix? Thanks again, Bob Armstrong

19 years, 6 months

[pups] Can't get a second DZQ11 to configure?!

by Robert Armstrong

Hi Guys, I've got a 11/73 with 2.11BSD. The hardware configuration is pretty typical - RQDX3, DEQNA, TK50, and one DZQ11. Everything runs fine, but now I need to install a second DZQ. The first DZQ has csr 160100 and vector 300, so according to my calculations the second should be at 160110 and vector 310. I set the switches, install the card, and then edit my system configuration to change NDZ to be 2, rebuild the kernel, reboot, and, .... Disappointment! When it gets up to init, it says: init: configure system dz 0 csr 160100 vector 300 attached ra 0 .... 172150 .... 154 tms 0 .... 174500 ... 260 ... etc ... nothing about the second DZQ. Everything else still works, including the original DZQ11, and it boots up just fine except that there's no sign of the second DZQ11. I figured I made a mistake building the kernel, so I double check my kernel configuration and yes, the file dz.h contains "#define NDZ 2". Just to be safe I delete all the objects from my machine's configuration directory and rebuild the entire kernel from sources (takes a couple of hours on a 11/73!). Still no joy - init only finds one DZ... And I'm sure I'm booting the new kernel because of the timestamp it prints out when you boot it. At this point I figured it's a hardware problem. Just to be sure, I pulled out both DZQs and swapped the switch settings on the two cards. This makes the original DZQ card now the "second" one at 160110/310 and the new card the "first" DZQ at 160100/300. Put it all back together and boot it up again - same results! Init finds the first DZ but not the second! Moreover, all the serial ports on the back that are now connected to dz0 (which is the card that used to be the second dz) still work! Of course, the ports on dz 1 (which is the card that used to work) are now dead. It seems like the two DZQ11 cards must be OK. Oh, and BTW, I even used the 11/73's console ODT to verify that all addresses from 17760100 to 17760117 respond. The only explanation I'm left with is a configuration problem. Is there something I don't know about rebuilding the 2.11bsd kernel? Is 160110/310 the wrong location for the second DZQ11? Thanks much, any suggestions are appreciated. Bob Armstrong

19 years, 6 months

Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape....

by Jose R Valverde

>It is in the same boat as the one Robert is writing >about. I know I can install NetBSD/vax on it using the >net boot concept. But I'd like to run one of the >appropriate distributions from "our" collection. Any >suggestions? The most obivous ones are - Quasijarus - Ultrix-32M -- ultrix 1.2 is in the archives -- from ifctvax.harhan.org you can get sources for ultrix 2.0.0 ultrix 4.2.0 (see previous posts in the list) - 32V j ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape....

by Aharon Robbins

Wasn't there an "installboot" program that told the bootblock where to find the /boot file? Boy was it a lllloooonnnngggg time ago that I dealt with this stuff. Arnold > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:28:31 -0400 > From: robertdkeys(a)aol.com > Subject: Re: [TUHS] Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape.... > To: msokolov(a)ivan.Harhan.ORG, tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org > > The /boot is there, so it is somewhere between the bootblocks > and /boot that the connection is lost. The /boot is apparently > not correctly found. But, it is there...... > > Bob Keys > > -----Original Message----- > > > The problem is that it won't install boot blocks that work. > > None of the raboot/rdboot/bootra/bootrd combos get > > any farther than the cryptic "loading boot" message. > > The "loading boot" message comes from the bootblock code and indicates > that the bootblocks are good and working. If it stops there, it means > that you are missing the /boot file in the root filesystem (that's what > it's loading). > > MS

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape....

by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG

Aharon Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote: > Wasn't there an "installboot" program that told the bootblock where > to find the /boot file? The installboot program in the original 4.3BSD, whose function has been incorporated into disklabel(8) in 4.3-Tahoe/Quasijarus, writes the boot blocks to the disk, but it does not patch them with the location of /boot, the bootblock code is smart enough to understand the filesystem. As for Robert's problem, I don't know where he got screwed - but man, use your head, what do you think your god-given brain is for? You can single-step through the code with the MicroVAX ROM monitor's N command, you can put some printf's in the code to see where it dies, etc, the possibilities are limitless. Just debug it the same way you would debug any other problem. What do you think I do when I get a similar mysterious snafu? I debug it like a real programmer, don't go crying to a mailing list. MS

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape....

by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG

robertdkeys(a)aol.com wrote: > The problem is that it won't install boot blocks that work. > None of the raboot/rdboot/bootra/bootrd combos get > any farther than the cryptic "loading boot" message. The "loading boot" message comes from the bootblock code and indicates that the bootblocks are good and working. If it stops there, it means that you are missing the /boot file in the root filesystem (that's what it's loading). MS

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Ancient unixes

by Brantley Coile

oops. sorry. it is http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/spe.html

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Ancient unixes

by Brantley Coile

this name `internet' name space was considered and rejected. it's harder than one would think to get details right for all networks, the addess is only a small part of the information needed for the connection, and keeping a name space for all the internet updated would be very hard. instead they use a network!machine!port syntax with the dial command. you can follow the full development of those ideas in the following papers. http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/who/dmr/spe.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/net/net.html remember. seventh edition was relase in 1977. Jimmy Carter was president, ``Anne Hall'' won best picture, and the Chevy Nova was a big hit.

19 years, 7 months

Status of "32i"

by Paul Duffy

Hi, Been reading through the list, just wondering did anything further come of the whole 32V/i project? Last mail about it i see was back in April 2004. -Paul "There is no greater sorrow then to remember times of happiness when miserable" -- Dante "The Inferno"

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Legality of porting ancient UNIX

by Jose R Valverde

Well, if I remember well, there was this little nifty legal argument between ATT USL and UCB BSDI in the early '90s that was settled out of court. One of the factors that helped settle (again if I remember well) was that ATT had failed to adequately state its Copyright on UNIX version 32V (may be more, my memory's weak) that had been distributed in source code, and hence those sources by the then current Copyright law, had fallen in the Public Domain. Then, if my recollection is right (better look at the documents on the case available on dmr's web page), you could do as you well damn please with those sources. http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html >From one of the rulings: "Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V. Plaintiff's claims of copyright violations are not a basis for injunctive relief." For others, the license otorgued by Caldera when they released the source (a BSD look-alike) would allow you to as well to a large extent. No need to go to the Open Group. Besides, they own the trademark (i.e. you could not call the product UNIX without their permission) but not the code (besides their own microkernel developments). j ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 7 months

Legality of porting ancient Unix.

by John Chung

There has been a lot of talk about ancient unix lately. I do know there are quite a few ports for the ancient unix but the main question is it legal? It is possible to port and distribute the port without the warth of the company that owns the IP? Regards, John Chung __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Legality of porting ancient Unix.

by Jose R Valverde

>Does anyone know where and how one obtains the "ancient unix" sources, >particularly 32V? Pardon? Obviously, at TUHS! www.tuhs.org particularly ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/VAX/Distributions/32V j ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Ancient unixes

by Jose R Valverde

Waddayamean? I mean: what does it mean to you 'the spirit of ancient Unix'? If by that you mean the fact that they were simple, slim and efficient, doing one simple thing and doing it right, you may then consider the effort by ast in the 80's with MINIX. OK, it used it's own microkernel, but the basic idea is the same... and has been followed on by Mach, BSD-lites, Flex, MacOS X, Tru64, Linux on L4, etc... As a matter of fact I always felt UNIX after v7 got it wrong: e.g. network data is no longer another stream (I'd have loved it to be a file system with directories representing network addresses and ports being files or pipes). Thus, later unices increased complexity by abandoning the simlicity of the original design. If that is the case, Plan 9 is a good update. And so is Inferno. Actually, I always felt that many additions to UNIX might have been better implemented outside the kernel if only the kernel had been expanded to allow user-mode expansions. But that's already here with kernel modules in Linux, BSDs, Solaris, etc... which are becoming more and more microkernelized each day. As microkernels become bigger :-) OTOH, if you mean adding 'modern' services, perhaps QNX is doing it with its support for Real-time. Or adding dynamic libraries, networking, modern virtual memory (beyond swapping), etc... which at the plainest level is what more or less likeably all modern UNIX have done. Extending into the future? Distributed computing, clusters, etc? Like some commercial UNIX, Amoeba, Inferno and the like? If you only mean resurrecting these ancient UNIX on modern hardware, there have been initiatives to rewrite v7 alike systems for other architectures (say OMU, UZI, MINIX, Coherent, Xinu, etc.). But for that you already have emulators that provide you the original flavor at even higher speeds in a virtualized environment. So? waddayamean? I think the answer to your question is YES! Lots of people have tried to improve ancient UNIX more or less successfully, and many people is still trying, using microkernels, no-kernels, adding RT, VM, dynamic libraries, kernel modules, etc... Each with their own approach. This said, if I were to pick an initiative that gets closest to the wishes of the original designers, that should undoubtedly be Plan 9 and its successor, Inferno, as they are what the 'Original Designers' themselves have done when they tried to repeat it doing it 'right' (or at least better) no matter what my personal opinions regarding the issue may be. Regarding my opinion, yes, I would go for the good old leather-bound days of IBM mainframes with MVS. (zOS?) which oddly enough are finally reaching the rest of us with Xen and emulators like QEMU. If I were to wish, I'd like a no-kernel approach (everything independent, cooperating, hot-substitutable, fully migratable processes) over a virtualizing system that allows me to run several OSs and update/change any OS component on the fly without service interruption, and to migrate everything between machines on demand ('cos of overload or hw failures or whatever, or just 'cos I wish to). Now, _that_ would IMHO be close to ultimate OS design: something that can always be updated on the fly and may survive any change, something that can adapt and evolve without interruption or even the user noticing. But that is a complex enough concept to expect most system programmers to grasp, let alone sysadmins, programmers or users not to pervert. Not to talk of salesmen and marketroids! j -- Jose R. Valverde EMBnet/CNB ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] ancient unixes

by Norman Wilson

Bill Cunningham: Has anyone had the idea to take the ancient unix, at least in spirit into the modern age? Warren Toomey: Plan 9? ======= Plan 9 is to UNIX as SVr4.2.2.2.2.2.2 is to Sixth Edition. If that's the spirit of the modern age, give me the good old leather-bound days, without all that modern rhythm- type dancing and hooting and waving. Norman Wilson Toronto ON PS: This message is not intended to supply the minimum daily requirement of serious thought. Consult your doctor or pharmacist, but not the one that just sent you electronic junk mail or promises to make explicit drugs fast.

19 years, 7 months

ancient unixes

by Bill Cunningham

Has anyone had the idea to take the ancient unix, at least in spirit into the modern age? Bill

19 years, 7 months

B and BCPL

by Jose R Valverde

See in http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mr/index.html where you can find an existing, working (!) and even maintained (!!) and evolving (!!!) BCPL system. And on http://www.catb.org/retro/ you'll find a link to a B-to-C translator: http://www.catb.org/retro/btoc.tar.gz BTW, and just in case my previous mail got lost: the correct URL for UZIX (UNIX for the MSX) is http://uzix.sf.net/ (sorry 'bout the mistake) j ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 8 months

UZIX

by Jose R Valverde

Sorry, it was my mistake. I was typing on a slow remote connection and didn't notice until you brought it up. The correct link is http://uzix.sf.net That's the home page for UZIX, a descendant of UZI aiming for the MSX. Sorry again, j ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 8 months

C compiler

by Bill Cunningham

In some of the eary versions of unix if I'm correct you had to generate the C compiler. Now how was that done? Was the compiler written in assembly and the assembler generated crt0 crt1 and so on? Bill

19 years, 8 months

UZI

by Jose R. Valverde

I thought someone might be interested. Regarding UNIX history, it is certainly interesting, although the code is not directly descended from ATT UNIX, but rather an independent lineage: http://www.dougbraun.com/uzi.html an implementation of UNIX for Zilog machines. I have been aware of UNIX initiatives for Zilog since the 80's (some friends of mine worked on a port for the Z8000), and like to check from time to time is somthing pops up. This one is an independent implementation of Unix 7th Ed written from scratch. Link to derivative work to port UZI to the veberable MSX: http://uzux.sf.net/ And another interesting one, the One Man Unix (OMU) http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve/omu.html another one written from scratch, this one for the 6809, and later ported to the 68000, even with an RT version! I think it is worth preserving these works as well: they are a huge tribute to the simplicity of UNIX design and its popularity. Perhaps they might find some space in the 'others' category of the archive together with Coherent, Trix and some others? j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural

19 years, 8 months

kronos

by Tim Newsham

I accidentally stumbled across this: http://www.excelsior-usa.com/krg/krg.html Perhaps only marginally relevant to tuhs. It's a historic soviet system modelled after Wirth's Lilith system. There's an emulator on the page that works in windows. You can log in as "sys" with no password. There are some familiar unix commands like "cd" and "ls", and others like "find" which seem to differ from the traditional unix commands. The system is written in modula II. There is some account information in /usr/etc and some docs (I think /doc or /usr/doc?) but they are in russian. I'd love to hear more about the system if anyone here knows more about it. Tim Newsham http://www.lava.net/~newsham/

19 years, 8 months

Enhanced troff available

by Gunnar Ritter

Hi, perhaps some people on this list are interested to hear that I have updated troff (from OpenSolaris code) to support: - direct access to PostScript Type 1 and Type 42 (converted TrueType) fonts - small capitals, old-style numerals, and ligatures from PostScript "expert" fonts - pairwise kerning of characters and letter space tracking, including a request to create kerning pairs for characters from different fonts - hanging characters - arbitrary letter sizes, including fractional points - text input according to the locale, including UTF-8 input on most platforms - hyphenation of international languages - international paper sizes such as A4 - DSC-conforming PostScript output - PDF bookmarks - higher device resolutions. Source code is available at <http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/doctools.html>. Gunnar

19 years, 8 months

DG/UX 4 tape images ... are incoming!

by asbesto

We're succesfully dumping the DG/UX tapes we have here. :) we had a lot of problem due to "Sticky shed syndrome": the tape stick to the head, causing the tape to lock while reading data ... cooking tapes will be a solution, but we followed another idea: we used a special Teflon Lubricant Spray (here in italy is "CRC TEFLON PENLUB SPRAY" this is PERFECT for tapes - we had to rewind the tape spraying the lubricant on the tape. this cause no problems at all, and we red sticky tapes without problems! the tape images are here: http://zaverio.net/eclipse/stuff/TAPE-IMAGES/ i don't know if there is (C) on those tapes - and really, i don't care about it. I think preserving them is a MISSION for us, and, so, here are the images. happy hacking! :) -- [ asbesto : IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry ] [ http://freaknet.org/asbesto http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ] [ http://www.emergelab.org :: NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LE ACCENTATE ] [ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC, SPAM ]

19 years, 8 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS